Dallas Austin

On May 29, 2026, Texas Supreme Court clarified an important procedural issue involving the Certificate of Merit requirement under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002 that affects claims against architects, engineers, and other licensed or registered design professionals. In Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg, 741 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. 2026), the Court held that when claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a Certificate of Merit, those claims may be reasserted through an amended petition—rather than a newly filed lawsuit—provided the underlyi

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court examined in Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff, 733 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2025), whether a tornado is a windstorm. The Dispute The Mankoff’s suffered a loss of their home due to a tornado.  Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (PURE) accepted the claim and paid for damages, but claimed there was a higher deductible because the tornado was a windstorm.  The term “windstorm” was not defined by the insurance policy.  The Mankoffs claimed that the term windstorm was distinct from a tornado and because the word “tornado” was not used

The 2022 changes to the lien laws in Texas made it possible for lien claimants to email their pre-lien notices to the original contractor and owner, as opposed to certified or registered mail, only. But, what constitutes substantial compliance with the lien laws in terms of providing electronic notice? Is emailing a pay application alone sufficient? The statute is instructive, but case law is scarce since many of the 2022 revisions have yet to be litigated. Notice under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code The lien statute provides that any notice or other written communication required by

In 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued its decision in Pitts v. Rivas, setting off a firestorm across the state of Texas about whether contracts no longer matter for professionals, particularly design professionals. If the “gist” of a complaint against an architect or engineer is that its services did not meet the applicable standard of care, can the design professional rely on waivers of consequential damages or limitations of liability or even scope exclusions written into their services agreements? Key Findings of Pitts v. Rivas: – If the “gist of a client’s complaint” or �

In an industry that relies heavily on contract compliance, construction contractors and suppliers operate with little room for error – particularly when it comes to job-critical equipment. A recent memorandum opinion from the Texas Court of Appeals out of Dallas, as see in Fabricating Machinery, Inc. v. RLB Construction, Ltd. d/b/a RoofTec, underscores three key principles: – contract conformity requires complete, not partial performance; – a buyer does not waive available remedies by accepting non-conforming goods; and, – a contractor seeking recovery must prove that its d